AuthorTopic: . (Read 8180 times)

I'm not sure that you're follow the economics of the situation. Firms that want the best lawyers will pay the most money to get them. This is the whole Biglaw concept. Do all the best lawyers get paid the most? No, Biglaw pays the most to recruit as many of the top candidates as it can. Some students choose not to take that route. My point is that industry generally defines what a good lawyer is, and by tracing backward from there, you can find that a good LSAT is generally a prerequisite to becoming a good lawyer.

maricutie

I'm not sure that you're follow the economics of the situation. Firms that want the best lawyers will pay the most money to get them. This is the whole Biglaw concept. Do all the best lawyers get paid the most? No, Biglaw pays the most to recruit as many of the top candidates as it can. Some students choose not to take that route. My point is that industry generally defines what a good lawyer is, and by tracing backward from there, you can find that a good LSAT is generally a prerequisite to becoming a good lawyer.

That brings up a concern .. how are we defining the "good" lawyers? The ones who make the most money? But then the sample would be lopsided towards those higher-paying fields. Then the ones who go into academia and publish brilliant legal treatises? Maybe the ones with most client referrals? The most stellar court performance?

Logged

maricutie

Good lawyers aren't defined. They are identified. The main thing that big firms care about is the bottom line, and if they found out that Cooley and Widener were producing the best lawyers then the big firms would hire them and pay them shitloads of money. If the best articles every year were by Cooley and Widener students, then they would be the one's getting published. Ultimately there isn't any conspiracy keeping Yale and Harvard at the top -- they just have the students that the people who care about the bottom line want to hire and they have the students whose writing is the most publishable and so on. I repeat: there is no conspiracy.

Then who does the identification? And in order to do the identification, there needs to be some sort of definition, however hazy, in the mind of the identifier. For one person the best laywer might be one with said brilliant legal articles, while for another it would be top partner at a top law firm. In criminal law the "best" lawyer might be the one with the best court room performance or one who can empathize best with the jury, while the best family law lawyer might be the one who is most conciliatory. Etc, etc.

No one is alleging a conspiracy. If anything, I am pushing an inquiry as to the LSAT's predictor of lawyer performance. Ninja had the best post on this so far. The problem that I'm finding is that "lawyer performance" is ill-defined, at best dependant on too many variables that the LSAT doesn't take into account. I think you might be trying to turn my inquiry into an AA post, which it originally was not intended to be. I've made my stance on AA known elsewhere many a times, in posts both in favor and against.

WoeIsMe

so.. is this the argument on is the lsat sufficient or necessary to determine who the best lawyer will be?

sounds like a bit of overstatement.. although I've heard on some occasions lsat scores being requested, most want to know class rank and GPA for the FIRST job out of school.. after that it's all about book of business which means rain-making skills are even more important. In this case, perception is carries more weight than objective reality.

so.. is this the argument on is the lsat sufficient or necessary to determine who the best lawyer will be?

sounds like a bit of overstatement.. although I've heard on some occasions lsat scores being requested, most want to know class rank and GPA for the FIRST job out of school.. after that it's all about book of business which means rain-making skills are even more important. In this case, perception is carries more weight than objective reality.

I agree that the LSAT is not the only prerequisite to making yourself appear to be a good lawyer. UGPA and LSAT roll into what school you attend. Then your LS class rank adds further distinction. The combination of these indicators is what will flag you as a potentially good lawyer. Someone who manages to get into Yale (probably with a great LSAT and GPA), and then finishes at the top of the class, will receive a lot more attention from law firms than someone who finishes in the middle of a T3 school. The LSAT is part of this evaluation of potential success, and both law schools and law firms buy into it. It's not perfect, but it minimizes the risk that firms take on candidates.

I am pushing an inquiry as to the LSAT's predictor of lawyer performance. Ninja had the best post on this so far. The problem that I'm finding is that "lawyer performance" is ill-defined, at best dependant on too many variables that the LSAT doesn't take into account.

Well in terms of the LSAT and lawyer performance there'd probably be a strong correlation in some fields and a weak one in others. For example:

Law articles/academia: There'd be a strong correlation between the people who perform well in this arena and the people who performed well on the LSAT. The people who generally excel in this arena are law school profs. who almost universally went to top schools with top grades which correlates very strongly with LSAT scores.

Law M&A type work: Probably a strong correlation. Maybe not as strong as academia but the M&A types are generally from top schools with very good academic records which correlates with LSAT scores.

Law appellate type work: Same as above.

Law general litigation: More of a mix. Some fields like antitrust, tax, you'd probably see a pretty strong correlation. Product liability, personal injury a much weaker correlation.

Oh and re speed and the practice of law. Speed is a significant issue with at large areas of legal practice. Not just from a billable time perspective but from a legal deadline perspective. Deadlines can be absolutely brutal at times and how fast you can perform tasks is a critical component of being able to practice law at least in many litigation areas of law. Probably different in transactional areas.